One thing, I probably wouldn't miss, is a lack of tutorials or any instructions what so ever. And while sometimes learning controls by trial and error was fun... still, I will not miss it.

It doesn't add anything to the game though, at least unless we reach a state where facial gestures can be properly used. And even then, only a really small number of games would use that for any positive gain. While it's been a while since L.A. Noire came out, it was pretty visible that we weren't close to that point yet.

Nope. I have bags of imagination. I create stuff from it every day, people, worlds, anything. I`ll bet my imagination far surpasses yours. And I make sure people can SEE what I imagine.

I`d like the same when I play a game.

Adding something to a game is exactly what graphical realism does.

In point of fact, it is why some games that people remember as great are found to be quite poor or even unplayable upon revisiting ten or twenty years later: Originally, the cutting-edge graphics--and perhaps other aspects like audio, etc.--provided an awe-inspiring experience that invited immersion. This immersion facilitated an ability to abide what was in reality questionable or poor gameplay. The overall experience was impressive enough to endure.

But as a game's technology loses its freshness over the years and its ability to immerse decreases, it is left to stand only on its gameplay. When the "crutches" fall away, the games with solid gameplay remain perfectly playable indefinitely, while the poor gameplay of the rest becomes harder and harder to ignore. It is gameplay--and not nostalgia or the simple passage of time itself--that determines whether or not a game "holds up".

The relationship of graphics to gameplay is analogous to--let's say, steak and potatoes. One does not require potatoes in order to enjoy steak, but if the potatoes are present, their quality has an effect on the entire experience. I don't blame most people for not thinking about this, but take a game as simple as Pac-Man: The graphics play a very large part in the appeal of the experience, as does the sound. The electric blue of the borders, the bright yellow of Pac-Man, the rich colors of the ghosts and the fruit--even the relatively high resolution. And then the catchy music and sound effects. The exact same gameplay can be rendered in black and white, and with no sound whatever--and suddenly the experience is no longer as enjoyable. It's a Pac-Man that's a whole let less 'Pac-Man'.

A video game is the sum of its parts. Being a game, the gameplay is the foundation and the most important. Bad gameplay equals a bad game no matter how well-executed every other aspect is. But in the realm of games, the video game has always been unique as a marriage of gameplay and technological innovation. It has always been just as much about the overall experience as the fundamental gameplay, whether Text Adventure or First-Person Shooter.

I always chuckle when I hear someone (more often than not in defense of consoles) say, "Well, I care about gameplay, not graphics!"**, as if by law one may be wedded to only one at a time. I am reasonably confident that most of those who say this do not, for example, play Text Adventures, so I feel justifiably skeptical at anyone who dismisses graphics as unimportant.

** If this is indeed true, it should be of interest to the console gamer that, since the demise of the AAA PC game industry in 2008, there has been basically zero technological innovation in any area except graphics. Innovation in aspects which have more of an effect on core gameplay such as AI, physics, and audio simulation has stalled or even regressed.

You did realize I was talking about it in an objective manner...? Because your post just points out the subjectivity of graphics, nothing more. I never denied that there are people that care about the graphics but it still doesn't change the fact that it adds nothing (objectively) to the game. There is no substance involved.
Your potato and steak example is kinda flawed by the way. Graphics would be something like the light which makes you possibly see the steak better. It doesn't change the steak though, it still tastes the same.

I've yet to get more than 10mins into Fallout 1 or 2 because the UI is so unintuitive and I'm sure I'll have to google a wiki to figure it out.

The assertion that it is superficial to be concerned about graphics seems clear and easy to understand. It's a fallacious (and not entirely uncommon) notion that I attempted to explain.

What does it matter if graphics adds nothing objectively to a game? But we don't even need to explore this, as the premise isn't true--aspects such as resolution and framerate, for example, are quantitative. I assure you that 0% of any subject group will find a game to be a better experience at 160 x 120 than at 1920 x 1080, or at 8 fps rather than 30 or 60 fps.

As far as my analogy, no, I don't see that it is flawed, though I also don't think it is particularly good as analogies go. My point was that potatoes are not necessary in order to enjoy a steak, just as graphics are not necessary in order to enjoy a video game (Remember: 'video game' refers to a game that is played on a video output device such as a TV or monitor). But if potatoes are present and rotten, they are going to degrade the experience just as will poor graphics.

Your light analogy is flawed, or at least incorrectly applied. I used the example of Pac-Man to show that graphics do in fact change the "flavor" of a game. Very much so.

Having to read the manual to learn how to play rather than being taught through the game design. If the entire crew of an airliner fell unconscious and I had to land the plane, I still wouldn't read the manual. I'd just wing it.

A lack of tutorials, there are several games where I've been unable to get past the 1st level because I have no idea what I'm doing and these are games made prior to 2000.

Unskippable cutscenes, the old JRPG's would sometimes have really difficult boss fights located after about 10 minutes of cutscene, and while I don't dislike cutscenes, having to watch them 10 times because of how difficult a fight is drives me insane.

The times when you swing a sword at something and despite you being right next to them, it turns out those 5 sword swings all missed. Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all time but I hate starting a new playthrough because of this.

The save-key style game save on the NES - I'm remembering Metroid here. You'd get like a 12-character alpha-numeric string that you had to enter to resume playing. Now keep in mind, this was entered using an up and down arrow style entry, ie. pressing up cycled through the alphabet, and then the numbers. And you had to do this 12 times. And then you had to decipher your handwriting, and decide if that was a 0 or an O, or an l, or an I or a 1, and then you'd have try all the combinations, still using the up and down arrow style entry. Sometimes it took 30 minutes or more just to load your save!

Oh yeah, i'm with you here. I would be completely onboard with a graphically enhanced Darklands or Betrayal at Krondor, so long as the gameplay was untouched. Improve the UI and the graphics, don't fuck with the mechanics.

Resolution and frames per second are not graphics and they do make an objective difference, the former technically more so than the latter (if you can actually see more of the game world then).

There are no "poor graphics". You can put a kid in front of a monitor and let him play early 3D games or other games. He will certainly recognize what everything is. And no, it will certainly not dampen his experience that it's not the newest game with the shiniest graphics. The same way, you can put adults in the same position and some people will enjoy it all the same while others (like the original poster) will whine about the graphics and be distracted by them.

We were talking about the graphics as in pixellated stuff etc (read the original post regarding that matter). Colors are a whole different issue that I wouldn't put under "graphics". That they do play a huge role is obvious, as seen on movies back in the day. Them being absent changes everything when it comes to style.

Playing old games, you come across some design choices that have since been weeded-out, sort of like the gaming industry is evolving and shedding the dead-end nonsense players don't want. Things that aren't just different but flat-out worse. Jagged Alliance 2, which is considered a classic, doesn't show you your hit chance when aiming. Which is really a problem, because you need to know in order to make informed tactical decisions.

So you think aesthetic design adds nothing to a game? And you've studied design for how long?

False. There are studies that have tested this. Your other senses effect the taste of your food. So turning off the lights may indeed effect the taste of your steak.

Some games actually have implemented measures to try and mitigate these issues.

* In The Magic of Scheherezade, every password starts with the letter "W" followed by a number denoting the chapter you are in. If you get those two characters correct (easy unless you're on Chapter 5 and enter an S instead of a 5), but you enter the rest of the password incorrectly 4 times, the game will start you at the beginning of the chapter.
* In The Guardian Legend, when you get a password, there is a test option. Choose this option and you will be prompted to re-enter the password you just got; if you fail, the game tells you that and lets you see the password for comparison.
* Some games, like Wonder Boy 3: The Dragon's Trap, make a point of not including confusable charaters. For example, in WB3, there is no letter "S" or "O" in the password system, so if you can't tell whether it's a letter or digit, it has to be a digit. (Interesting note: The remake of this game still supports the old passwords, though it normally uses a more modern save system.)